On September 14, a hearing was held in San Francisco Superior Court in Field v Bowen, the case that attacks two aspects of California’s “top-two” system that are more restrictive than Washington state’s version. Even though the authors of California’s Proposition 14, and its implementing language, say they based their proposal on Washington state’s “top-two” system, in reality the California version gives voters and candidates less freedom.
Washington permits write-ins in both the primary and the general election, but the authors of Proposition 14 oppose write-in votes in November for Congress and state office. Washington permits a candidate to choose any party preference, but California’s version does not let voters who are registered into an unqualified party list that party name on the ballot. Washington has easy ballot access for minor party and general election presidential candidates, but California does not, and Proposition 14 makes the rules for presidential ballot access far more severe.
At the hearing, both the attorney for the Secretary of State, and the attorney for the supporters of Proposition 14, severely criticized the Washington state version of “top-two”. Mark Beckington, for the Secretary of State, said that unless a party is a qualified party, it is not a political party. He said that to let a member of an unqualified political party put his or her party name on the ballot would “confuse” voters. Marguerite Leone, for the groups that support Proposition 14, was more emotional. She said, with genuine alarm in her voice, “What if someone wants to put ‘Republic Party’ or ‘GOP Party’? Of course, that is exactly what does happen in Washington state. As to write-ins, she said that just because Washington state permits them is no reason for California to permit them.
The attorneys in favor of Proposition 14’s implementing legislation were somewhat uncomfortable asserting that the California legislature intended to eliminate write-in space on ballots, because the existing election law says that write-in space should be printed on ballots. Existing law also says that all voters may cast a write-in in “any” election. And existing election law says anyone may file in any federal or state election as a declared write-in candidate. Beckington said that the Secretary of State has proposed “corrective legislation.” The judge then said she would not change her tentative decision, which says that the legislature’s intent was to abolish write-in space on ballots. In other words, the case was decided on imaginary laws that may or may not come into existence in the future, instead of actual laws currently on the books.
The attorney for the Secretary of State also said that the special election in the First State Senate district, set for January 4, 2011, would be held under the rules in effect before Proposition 14 passed. It is not a certainty that there will be such a special election on January 4, but it is extremely likely.
In case anyone missed Richard Winger’s recent appearance on C-SPAN, here’s the link.
Perhaps the whole court stuff is imaginary — some fiction for the entertainment of the media folks ???
How many imaginary labels in the 2010 top 2 WA State primary ???
How about *California Party* as a label — in WA and/or CA — or even *Universe Party* ???
How much FREE advertising for each label ???
—
Any of the genius lawyers bring up 14th Amdt, Sec. 2 regarding the write-in ban ???
Unlikely, of course, since the mere U.S.A. Constitution is almost dead — due to MORON lawyers and even worse MORON party hack judges.
The Top 2 primary has a number of flaws, primarily using State power to undercut the ability to exercise the 1st Amendment right to assemble/petition to elect of legislative and executive officers and change public policy. (apologies to “Demo Rep” who thinks that attorney’s like Madison writing the Bill or Rights or Lincoln writing the Emancipation Proclamation wrote those for the entertainment of media folk)
But the common sense flaws that none of the arguments for or against proposition 14 address are:
(1)the potential for fraud in candidates being able to affiliate with a party they are not really in, and
(2)the removal of an elective primary nominating process inevitably pushing selection of party candidates back into closed party conventions. Some political parties will make those opened, but others will inevitably make those decisions in a closed “back room.”
2010 CA primary
Senate — ALL 10 incumbents seeking re-election had NO opposition in the primary.
Assembly — 44 incumbents NO opposition
5 incumbents had opposition – all 5 nominated.
Are ALL the party hack incumbents sweating bullets for the 2012 election ??? — ALL of them may have some REAL opposition in their gerrymander districts — even if it is a nominal fellow Donkey or Elephant in the CA top 2 primary.
P.R. and App. V. — REAL reform —
NO primaries are needed — NOT the half-ass top 2 stuff for juveniles — now infecting LA, WA and CA — and likely to go into more States — as the latest and greatest invention since sliced bread.
Re: Steve Rankin’s post #1 and the CNN Winger interview
Thank you for the link to the CNN interview, I don’t watch TV much at all, so I missed the original. Watching the interview in full allows me to reiterate my cristism. And so, to “write Winger”…
Although you did mention [pure] proportional representation, my major disagreenments in thoughts with you is 1) the definition of “party”, 2) the perpetuation of single winner districts.
1) From my experience of “party”, that’s a word(s) by someone’s name when they access the ballot. To make it anything more is damaging. A good example is the Libertarian Party, who claim to be for liberty, but the very group which “proclaims” to espouse liberty, excludes individuals who wish the liberty to have whatever word by their name they desire. To me, Libertarian Party = hypercite, from the looks of their bylaws.
2) Single winner districts are the other problem. With the US Parliament’s ballot, we start with 100 names, add the five executives’ names. the twelve full cabinet ministers’ names and the president and vice president’s name (#1 & # 2 from previous election), and we have 119 names on the ballot, before nominations even start.
Next, as about 135 names fit comfortably on a double-sided 8&1/2″ x 11″ page, it’s simply a matter of supply and demand in attaining the equality among all new nominees. This year we had 155 names, and three spaces for write ins, so we went from 119 to 155 when nomination were added.
When you look at the damage single winner districts do by attracting egotists who have to prove they are better than everyone else, you can easily see districts with two or more names elected is supeior, as team players are generally more attractive than egotists. (at least, to me) Two member districts also allow for guaranteed gender balance, when 2/3rds of the voters alternate genders. Two member districts allow for a “opposite gender #1” scheme.
So for the last 15 years we see single winner IRV districts, and that’s why the perpetuators of single winner districts (like Winger) and party boss systems where no liberty of choice of word by your name (again like Winger), almost never advance.
Applause…..clap…clap…”thank you”….clap, clap….applause….”thank you, thank you”….clap, clap…”please, thank you”…clap, clap, clap, etc., etc.
Washington does not permit sore losers in the Top 2 primary to contest the general election as write-in candidates. It is easier for a write-in candidate in the primary to advance to the general election under Proposition 14, than it is in Washington.
Elections Code Section 8606 does not explicitly provide that write-in votes in the general election not be counted. Other provisions of the Elections Code require that write-in votes for declared write-in candidates be counted in all elections.
The highly esteemed Sam Reed has proposed legislation that would regulate the parties for which a candidate may express a preference, which would require them to meet certain membership requirements and have bylaws. The Forces of FUD prevented this legislation from going forward.
Proposition 14 has no effect on qualification for the presidential ballot. If anything, it may open California to litigation similar to that in Idaho, where it is easier to qualify for the ballot for statewide office than it is for President.
California does not restrict the party affiliation that a voter may express on their voter registration. In effect, it permits write-ins. Currently, a voter expresses an “intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary”. He may express that intent, even if the party has not qualified to hold a primary; even if the party has organized in an attempt to qualify to hold a primary, but not informed election officials of that effort; or even if the party has not formally organized.
Under current (pre-Prop 14 law) if at the time of the next election, a voter’s party is not qualified, then the voter’s participation as either a voter or candidate is restricted. In effect, he is treated as if he were a Declined To State voter. While California could treat voters registered with other parties differently than DTS voters with respect to partisan offices, it does not do so.
It should be noted that in the case of non-partisan offices, all voters, regardless of their party affiliation, are treated the same, whether as voters or as candidates.
Proposition 14/SB 6 recasts voter registration from an “intent to affiliate with a party at the next primary”, to a “party preference”. Just like under current law, a voter may express a party preference for a party even if the party has not qualified to hold a presidential primary or nominate a presidential candidate; have its endorsements for voter-nominated offices printed on the party sample ballot; or elect party officers at the primary. This is true even if the party has organized in an attempt to qualify, but not informed election officials of that effort; or even if the party has not formally organized.
For purposes of participation in a presidential primary, or in election for party offices, a voter who has expressed a preference for a non-qualified party, is treated the same as a voter who has not expressed a party preference.
With respect to voting in primaries for nonpartisan and voter-nominated offices, all voters, with one small exception, are treated the same, regardless whether they have expressed a party preference or not, nor whether the party preference is for a qualified party or not.
The small exception is that voters who are registered with a non-qualified party will not receive a sample ballot for their party containing party endorsements.
In elections for a voter-nominated office, candidates who on their voter registration expressed a preference for a political party, regardless whether the party is qualified or not, are treated differently than those who have expressed no preference. A candidate who declared a party preference on their voter registration, must either use the same party designation on the ballot, or not have a ballot designation at all. A candidate who declared no party preference on their registration, must use that (no) party designation or not have that designation at all.
The plaintiffs interpret Elections Code 338 overly broadly. They misinterpret the word “any” to mean “all”. The authority and manner in which a qualified party participates in any particular primary election depends on the nature of the primary. In party primaries for partisan offices, voters affiliated with each party form the electorate who choose the nominee of the party. Parties do not participate in non-partisan primaries. Participation of qualified parties in primaries for voter-nominated offices is limited to having a party sample ballot. Being the object of a candidate preference can not be said to be a meaningful participation at all. Further, the definitions in the Election Code do not apply when the context requires a different interpretation.
In particular, a voter may express a preference for a non-qualified party on his voter registration. If a voter could not do so, the whole process by which a party becomes qualified does not make sense. So with respect to voter registration, a “party preference” does not mean a “preference for a qualified party”. Whether a voter’s party preference is for a qualified party is only meaningful with respect to voting in presidential preference primaries, in elections for party officers, and receiving a party sample ballot in elections for voter-nominated offices.
The plaintiff’s would make a voter’s party preference derivative of what their party preference would be if they were a candidate. But it is actually the other way around. A candidate’s party preference is derivative of his party preference expressed on his voter registration.
If a voter wishes to run for Congress in 2012, expressing a preference for the SalmonYoga party, then he must express that party preference on his voter registration. The fact that the SalmonYoga party might not hold a presidential primary in 2012 or elect party officers, or even have a party sample ballot distributed to party registrants is of no consequence to running for a voter-nominated office.
Prop. 14 certainly does effect the California presidential ballot. It eliminates the method most commonly used by which parties remain ballot-qualified and therefore keeps them off for president.
It is not true that Washington state doesn’t permit “sore loser” write-in candidates in the general election. They can’t file as a declared write-in candidate, but in Washington state, anyone who appears to have got the most votes in a general election is elected, whether he or she filed as a declared write-in or not.
Re: #7.
RCW 29A.60.021
Write-in voting — Declaration of candidacy — Counting of vote.
(1) … “No write-in vote made for any person who has not filed a declaration of candidacy pursuant to RCW 29A.24.311 is valid if that person filed for the same office, either as a regular candidate or a write-in candidate, at the preceding primary.” …
The loophole is that someone who lost the primary can file as a declared write-in candidate in the general. So the sentence quoted would not apply to such a person.
Re #7
In 2002, 5 of the 7 qualified parties had registration in excess of 1% of the gubernatorial vote. The Reform and Natural Law parties did not. The Reform Party also missed the 2% threshold and became non-qualified. While the NLP did remain qualified, it continued to lose registrants, and did not have a presidential primary or nominee in 2004. Subsequent to 2002, the Peace&Freedom Party qualified on the basis of its registrants. So all 6 parties in the 2004 presidential election qualified on the basis of their party registration.
In 2006, 4 of the 6 parties qualified on the basis of their registration. The Libertarian Party narrowly missed. Had it not also qualified on the basis of the 2% criteria, it would likely have regained its qualified status on the basis of a registration drive. The Peace&Freedom Party may be going the way of the NLP and Reform.
So for the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections 10 of 12 parties qualified on the basis of party registration. 83% would meet my standard of “most common”.
With all 6 qualified parties running candidates for all statewide offices, there is a reasonable chance that some parties are going to fail the 2% test in 2010.
And it is possible that California will have adopted the Top 2 system for presidential elections by 2016.
Re #9
RCW 29A.24.311
Write-in voting — Candidates, declaration.
Any person who desires to be a write-in candidate and have such votes counted at a primary or election may file a declaration of candidacy with the officer designated in RCW 29A.24.070 not later than the day before the primary or election. Declarations of candidacy for write-in candidates must be accompanied by a filing fee in the same manner as required of other candidates filing for the office as provided in RCW 29A.24.091.
…
No person may file as a write-in candidate where:
(1) At a general election, the person attempting to file either filed as a write-in candidate for the same office at the preceding primary or the person’s name appeared on the ballot for the same office at the preceding primary;
…
So a candidate who appeared on the primary ballot, or was a declared write-in candidate at the primary, may not file as a write-in candidate at the general election. There is no necessity to distinguish between winners and losers, since the two winners will appear on the general election ballot, and would have no reason to file as a write-in candidate (any write-in votes for an on-ballot candidate are valid).
So a loser in the primary, whether as an on-ballot candidate, or a declared write-in candidate, may not file as a declared write-in candidate in the general election (RCW 29A.24.311); and any votes cast for them as an undeclared write-in candidate in the general election are not valid (RCW 29A.60.021).
No loopholes. Once the folks in California realize that the proper response to Elections Code 8606 is “Gesundheit!!”, then California could provide that loser in the primary for a voter-nominated office may file as a write-in candidate.